The latest on Briggs: Bears want more

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Letting them move up to the 6th pick and taking a problem off their hands is doing them a favor in my book. I don't see anyone else beating down their door to take him off their hands. If they don't trade him they are looking at a locker room disaster next season.

Somehow, I don't think a group of 52 paid professionals will allow one really good player to ruin everything. Quite the contrary. They are much better off with him.

We are much better off without him.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Letting them move up to the 6th pick and taking a problem off their hands is doing them a favor in my book. I don't see anyone else beating down their door to take him off their hands. If they don't trade him they are looking at a locker room disaster next season.

Sadly I agree with Grim. We are doing them a favor by taking away their problem.

Beside that we are screwing ourselves up by paying so much for Briggs and screwing over Rocky who we have invested quite a bit in.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Sadly I agree with Grim. We are doing them a favor by taking away their problem.

Beside that we are screwing ourselves up by paying so much for Briggs and screwing over Rocky who we have invested quite a bit in.

It's really a bad trade for both teams. The Bears don't have a use for the No. 6 pick. They don't have a Briggs replacement on the roster.

So Angelo won't be able to accept the 31 and Briggs for the 6th. He's too smart, too patient, and it hurts his defense far too much. It makes sense that he's doing his due dilligence and requesting a trade that benefits his team. This trade just won't be possible without at least one side getting royally screwed.

Look, I don't know where the Lance Briggs is a headcase faction arose from, but nothing could be further from the truth. Contract negotiations are tricky, and he's simply saying what his agent tells him to to get him the most money.

The proposed deal by us hurts all parties involved except Rosenhaus. Fitting.

[celts32]

I hated this deal from the git go...but they have balls asking for more. They have a player who does not want to play for them and plans on sitting out until at least week 10. How the f do they have leverage here? Tell them to go pound sand!

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm shocked that Ian Scott is still unsigned. He'd be a fine addition to any team, and we certainly have the need at the position, but I'd pass on him. Inevitably, there will be a better DT on the open market next year.

Like who? That's one position I've found teams like to have stick around unless coaches and general managers truly think they're done -- like Warren Sapp. Even still, a "better" defensive linemen who is on the free agent market will command top dollar, so much so that we may not be in running depending on how our cap situation shakes out.

As far as Ian Scott goes, I've never heard of him anywhere but here at The Warpath. Don't you think if he was that good he'd have been snatched up by now? Otherwise, the longer he sits there with no interest, if the Redskins do sign him, it would look more like another Brandon Noble-type has-been acquisition that ultimately won't help us.

That the Redskins have up till now shown no interest doesn't speak well -- either he's that bad, or institutionally speaking, the front office simply refuses to address their needs at that position. (Assuming of course, they even recognize there's a problem with the front four). There's a part of me that thinks this front office believes they've already solved the problem on the D-line with last year's draft selections of Kedric Golston and Anthony Montgomery.

Let's hope that's not the case.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Like who? That's one position I've found teams like to have stick around unless coaches and general managers truly think they're done -- like Warren Sapp. Even still, a "better" defensive linemen who is on the free agent market will command top dollar, so much so that we may not be in running depending on how our cap situation shakes out.

As far as Ian Scott goes, I've never heard of him anywhere but here at The Warpath. Don't you think if he was that good he'd have been snatched up by now? Otherwise, the longer he sits there with no interest, if the Redskins do sign him, it would look more like another Brandon Noble-type has-been acquisition that ultimately won't help us.

That the Redskins have up till now shown no interest doesn't speak well -- either he's that bad, or institutionally speaking, the front office simply refuses to address their needs at that position. (Assuming of course, they even recognize there's a problem with the front four). There's a part of me that thinks this front office believes they've already solved the problem on the D-line with last year's draft selections of Kedric Golston and Anthony Montgomery.

Let's hope that's not the case.

Well, Ian Scott played well enough in Chicago to keep Tank Johnson, a 2nd rounder, from cracking the starting lineup in his first 3 seasons (even prior to his legal issues). I'm very shocked he isn't signed yet, I'm guessing it has to do with his price tag since KC signed Alfonzo Boone, the Bears' 4th DT, a clearly inferior player to Scott.

He's going to sign somewhere and improve their defensive line. I just think the money would be better off saved than spent right now. More veterans on the DL are not what we need.

[RedskinPete]

Bears havesome balls to ask for Marshall as well!!! No deal. Unless we get thier 2nd and 4th in this draft and we get thier 1st[31st] and they get our 1st[6th] with Marshall going to the bears and we get Briggs. Brings and moving down in the draft and giving up marshall as well is just bad all the way round. If we take that deal we need a new owner and we need a GM.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I agree.

Competition is a good thing. We seem to be so afraid of it.

Let Rocky and Marshall fight it out. You save so much money over Briggs in doing so.

I'm shocked that Ian Scott is still unsigned. He'd be a fine addition to any team, and we certainly have the need at the position, but I'd pass on him. Let's save our money. Inevitably, there will be a better DT on the open market next year. Lets take advantage of the fact that Salave'a still has a year left on his deal and milk him for all he's worth. If he just can't go anymore, play the rookie I'm assuming we are going to take.

We very well could make a big signing on the DL next offseason, but certainly we will be reevalutating our needs between now and then.

Laron Landry only makes sense if we can get a trade down AND have decided to give up on Sean Taylor. If we are committed to Taylor, Landry makes little sense.

if we trade down and the big 3 defensive lineman are gone why not pair him with taylor man this draft would be so much easier if we had a 2nd rd pick way to go gibbs pissing it away like that

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Like who? That's one position I've found teams like to have stick around unless coaches and general managers truly think they're done -- like Warren Sapp. Even still, a "better" defensive linemen who is on the free agent market will command top dollar, so much so that we may not be in running depending on how our cap situation shakes out.

As far as Ian Scott goes, I've never heard of him anywhere but here at The Warpath. Don't you think if he was that good he'd have been snatched up by now? Otherwise, the longer he sits there with no interest, if the Redskins do sign him, it would look more like another Brandon Noble-type has-been acquisition that ultimately won't help us.

That the Redskins have up till now shown no interest doesn't speak well -- either he's that bad, or institutionally speaking, the front office simply refuses to address their needs at that position. (Assuming of course, they even recognize there's a problem with the front four). There's a part of me that thinks this front office believes they've already solved the problem on the D-line with last year's draft selections of Kedric Golston and Anthony Montgomery.

Let's hope that's not the case.

I don't think they'd see it as solved, but the current roster has some tough decisions on it for Gibbs. Wynn & Daniels are team leaders & Gibbs' guys, and Saleva (sp?) is a Gibbs favorite as well. All these guys are old but can still contribute. The question is, can they contribute enough to earn a roster spot, especially considering what they're paid?

The only guy I think will certainly be gone is Evans. Other than him, it's a tough call on those vets.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Actually, a few years ago (maybe 2005) Evans signed a nice extension.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

if we trade down and the big 3 defensive lineman are gone why not pair him with taylor man this draft would be so much easier if we had a 2nd rd pick way to go gibbs pissing it away like that

The secondary is going to go as Taylor goes. If Taylor is still doing his "giant hole in the middle of the defense" impersonation, no one would ever bother to throw in Landry's direction. If Taylor comes back playing disiplined, all-pro football, what's the point of even having Landry? At that point, he becomes the weak link in the secondary due to inexperience. I see him being a non factor his first 2 years in the league, and after that, who knows if we wouldn't have found a cheap, talented safety to play next to Taylor anyway?

If we decide to give up on ST, thats one thing. But if we are going to put our confidence in him, drafting Landry is NOT the way to do that.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

I don't think they'd see it as solved, but the current roster has some tough decisions on it for Gibbs. Wynn & Daniels are team leaders & Gibbs' guys, and Saleva (sp?) is a Gibbs favorite as well. All these guys are old but can still contribute. The question is, can they contribute enough to earn a roster spot, especially considering what they're paid?

The only guy I think will certainly be gone is Evans. Other than him, it's a tough call on those vets.

Evans could be a temporary young solution at LDE when we address DT this year.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Actually, a few years ago (maybe 2005) Evans signed a nice extension.

Really? didn't realize that. I was basing my opinion on his play & the fact that Wynn & Daniels are team leaders.
Evans having an affordable deal would certainly weigh in his favor, but I don't think he's gotten better since 04.

I think Wynn & Daniels desever another go round & can still help the team. Who gets cut might be determined by which position we draft in rnd. 1: DT or DE.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Really? didn't realize that. I was basing my opinion on his play & the fact that Wynn & Daniels are team leaders.
Evans having an affordable deal would certainly weigh in his favor, but I don't think he's gotten better since 04.

I think Wynn & Daniels desever another go round & can still help the team. Who gets cut might be determined by which position we draft in rnd. 1: DT or DE.

He was quite young in 2004. I would think he'd be nearing the prime of his career these next two years. Might as well get him in there.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

i am still torn on who to draft adams,branch,okoye,or anderson